User talk:Djkcel

arginine

By "Greek" do you mean Modern Greek ({{etyl|el}}), or Ancient Greek ({{etyl|grc}})? —Ruakh_TALK 03:02, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Ancient Greek, should I re-add it under that tag? Djkcel (talk) 12:58, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I realized afterward, when I set about transliterating it, that it had a bunch of English letters in the middle of it; so, I removed it. But if you can add the correct Ancient Greek, then yes, please do so. :-)   —Ruakh_TALK 13:24, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry! My source says "arginoeis" and I wasn't sure how to write that in the original Greek. Is there a resource to convert that to the correct letters? Djkcel (talk) 15:39, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Nope. If your source is an anglophone source, then we at least know there should be a smooth breathing mark on the initial alpha (since if it had a rough breathing mark, an anglophone source would write "ha-"), but even then, it's not obvious whether the first "i" should be an iota or an eta, whether/where there should be a tonos, etc. (I mean, it's not obvious to me. Someone who actually knows something about Ancient Greek might be able to figure it out.) —Ruakh_TALK 16:21, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

The actual spelling is ἀργινόεις (arginóeis). The only ambiguities in "arginoeis" are the o and the e, which could be short (omicron and epsilon) or long (omega and eta). There are 3 accents (though 2 are in complementary distribution with each other), and the position of the accent is phonemic. In other words, your examples only make sense in Modern, but not Ancient Greek. Your warning about the dangers of guessing was exactly right, though: the reverted edit had 3 Greek letters, and 2 were wrong. I created an entry for ἀργινόεις (arginóeis) (a very tricky nt-stem- I hope I got it right), and added back that part of the etymology. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:43, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

A belated welcome

With all these discussions of minor points, I'm surprised no one gave you our standard welcome template, which has the resources so you can learn how to not make the kinds of mistakes you've been making:

Welcome

Hello, welcome to Wiktionary, and thank you for your contributions so far.

If you are unfamiliar with wiki-editing, take a look at Help:How to edit a page. It is a concise list of technical guidelines to the wiki format we use here: how to, for example, make text boldfaced or create hyperlinks. Feel free to practice in the sandbox. If you would like a slower introduction we have a short tutorial.

These links may help you familiarize yourself with Wiktionary:

• Entry layout (EL) is a detailed policy on Wiktionary's page formatting; all entries must conform to it. The easiest way to start off is to copy the contents of an existing same-language entry, and then adapt it to fit the entry you are creating.
• Check out Language considerations to find out more about how to edit for a particular language.
• Our Criteria for Inclusion (CFI) defines exactly which words can be added to Wiktionary; the most important part is that Wiktionary only accepts words that have been in somewhat widespread use over the course of at least a year, and citations that demonstrate usage can be asked for when there is doubt.
• If you already have some experience with editing our sister project Wikipedia, then you may find our guide for Wikipedia users useful.
• If you have any questions, bring them to Wiktionary:Information desk or ask me on my talk page.
• Whenever commenting on any discussion page, please sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~) which automatically produces your username and timestamp.
• You are encouraged to add a BabelBox to your userpage to indicate your self-assessed knowledge of languages.

Enjoy your stay at Wiktionary! Chuck Entz (talk) 05:52, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

etymology

Hello Djkcel! May I draw your attention to some templates that may be useful when adding etymologies?

• term for attested words (ancestors and cognates)
• recons for reconstructed words
• etyl for the name of the language where a word comes from
• rfscript for signalling a word in the wrong script

Example (in a Spanish lemma): From {{etyl|la|es}} {{term|foobar|lang=la}}, from {{etyl|ine-pro|es}} {{recons|foobar|lang=ine-pro}}

This should give: From Latin foobar, from Proto-Indo-European *foobar

If you encounter words in a wrong script, you could add {{rfscript}} to the lemma. In saxum, there was a word in Old Church Slavonic, but written in Latin characters. Here most words are in their native script: thus Old Church Slavonic in (Old) Cyrillic script. In such a case, you can add {{rfscript|Cyrs}} to the lemma, so others may find and fix the problem.

Have a look at the documentation of these templates or ask me or other users.

Greetings, --MaEr (talk) 14:36, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

berro

Is the Gaulish form actually attested? if not, it should have an * in front of it. The best way to do that is using the {{recons}} template, which is just like {{term}}, except for reconstructed forms (even for unattested forms in otherwise attested languages). Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 15:16, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

δρακεῖν

I have reverted your edit to this entry. Wiktionary policy is that we try not to duplicate information for form-of entries; it simply becomes too much work to keep all the information coordinated, up-to-date, and so on. The etymology you entered on δρακεῖν already existed on δέρκομαι, and belongs there (and only there). That being said, aside from the misplacement, it was a good etymology, I do appreciate your effort in entering it, and I sincerely hope you'll continue to work on Ancient Greek on Wiktionary. If you have any questions, please feel quite free to ask. Cheers. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 22:39, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay, since it took me a minute to remember the talk page formatting. Appreciate the response, and a big d'oh for not realizing I was just editing one form of δέρκομαι and hence duplicating the origin. I'll keep a better eye out in the future and avoid clones. Djkcel (talk) 14:27, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Κρήτη

Could I ask what your source is for this? I'm not finding any evidence of the name κρυσ anywhere. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 23:21, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

It's from A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities (Smith, Williams) via OED, but unfortunately I probably mis-transliterated it, since they don't use Greek letters. "Krus" is said to be the mythological hero/ancestor (possibly Syrian/Philistine?) who Crete is named after, but I'm not sure if κρυσ is how that would be spelled. Would it be better to add in the romanized letters?

Sorry it has taken me so long to answer this question. In the future, if you have a transliteration, it's probably best to simply put down that transliteration, and add {{rfscript|sc=Grek}}. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 21:28, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

λίθος

Can I ask what your source is for this one, and if you know how it works? I'm trying to remember the various phoneme evolution rules, but am having a hard time getting "lithos" from "per". -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 21:26, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Please accept my apology. That origin was meant for πέτρα, not λίθος. I see that you already fixed it - appreciate it.

panocha and galla

Hi. I’d like to know the source for two etymologies you added:

• panocha. How can Vulgar Latin have a word for a plant native to America?
• galla.

— Ungoliant ^(Falai) 18:43, 17 May 2013 (UTC) Also: Portuguese arrumar. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 01:45, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Hey there. Let's see...

• In Spanish, the original sense of 'panocha' was a loan translation of English panicle, which refers to a cluster of flowers. This itself came from Vulgar Latin panicula, itself a diminutive of panus "ear of millet," which from Greek "penos." Therefore when 'panocha' evolved in Spanish and took on several more meanings, such as 'corncob,' it always had that origin in the original botanical term from vulgar Latin. Source: OED. </nowiki>
• "Galla" is a bit trickier. We use "gall" in English to refer to the sore spots on horses' skin by chafing, which came from Latin "galla" whose original sense of "oak apple" evolved into "lump on plant" or "sore." This is where Germanic shows up as a strong suggestion because the other meaning of "gall" in English is for bile and the contents of the gallbladder, which of course came through Germanic from PIE *ghel. The Germanic term for bile, bitter objects could have influenced Latin if the meaning was for a sore, especially when considering lumps/sores on plants. Source: OED.
• Portuguese and Spanish arrumar are the same word and share the same original meaning, which was nautical. Many nautical terms were borrowed from Dutch; the original sense for arrumar was to distribute and place loads in a ship, borrowed from the Dutch nautical term for "space, central location" on a ship, from "ruim.' Source: A marine pocket dictionary of the Italian, Spanish, Portuguese and German languages. Djkcel (talk) 02:13, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm skeptical about the loan-translation part: panocha shows the type of sound changes one would expect much earlier in the history of the language, so it must be inherited from Vulgar Latin. I suppose the panicle sense might be borrowed- but by means of substituting a similar word already present in Spanish. I changed "ear of corn" to "ear of grain" in the definition, because in US usage corn refers strictly to maize, and one can say things like "panocha de trigo". Chuck Entz (talk) 02:35, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

As for gall: the explanation in the entry is missing most of the information that links "poison sore" to the etymology of gall to the Latin term- leaving cryptic non sequiturs. You need to look at it from the viewpoint of someone who hasn't read the entries in other dictionaries, and add what's necessary. Linking to gall doesn't help, because one etymology doesn't mention anything about poison sores, and the other just links back to the Latin entry. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:53, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Ah, millet. The entry used to say maize. Regarding arrumar, my dictionary says the etymology is uncertain, possibly from French arrumer or from a- + rumo + -ar.

Oh, and I just finished marking your edits as patrolled, and I must ask you: please start paying more attention to formatting! — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 03:01, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Joan Coromines (Breve diccionario etimológico ...) states:

• panoja, del lat. vg. panucula (clásico panicula), diminutivo de panus. La variante regional panocha no está explicada con seguridad. — this contradicts your etymology.
• arrumar: after French arrumer from Gmc rûm ("space", English room, German Raum) — this confirms your etymology more or less.

--MaEr (talk) 11:59, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Chinchilla vs. chinchilla

I don't know for a fact that the surname Chinchilla isn't from Aymara, but the fact that you added the etymology at the same time you added the etymology to the genus name gave me enough doubt to revert you on it. Do you really have a source that gives the surname and the animal name the same origin? I would think that w:Chinchilla de Monte-Aragón would be a more likely source. I don't remember the details, but this isn't the first time this has happened. Please be careful about placing etymologies in the correct entry. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:30, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Phi

It’s φ not ϕ. ϕ is a mathematical/IPA symbol. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 19:15, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Borrowings

[1] - Latin word was borrowed from Greek, which was in turn inherited from PIE blah blah, and has cognates blah blah. It the Latin word was not inherited from PIE, it makes no sense to mention Gothic, Old English, Albanian etc. cognates of the Greek word. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 00:40, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

OK, so if the borrowing is from Greek + PIE, I can just leave it at that and leave the cognates out. I do think it's helpful to keep the PIE derivation in there as it keeps the tags (Latin words from PIE) updated. Thanks - Djkcel (talk) 02:33, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, but that way you could get Japanese word being derived from PIE simply because of some English borrowing in Japanese. And also cannot make distinction between inherited and borrowed words by inspecting categories such as "Xxx terms derived from PIE". Now that I think about it, perhaps we should split these categories in two, one for inheritance ("Xxx terms inherited from Proto-X) and one for borrowings ("Xxx terms derived from Proto-Y"). That would also be useful for Romance languages who borrowed lots of post-Vulgar Latin vocabulary. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 02:44, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Arnica#Etymology

Why do you think the Arabic origin is possible? Do you have information on what plant is referred to by 'arnabiyah'? Do you have information on plants in genus Arnica being native to Arab-speaking countries? DCDuring TALK 01:53, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Etymonline attributes it to Klein's "A Comprehensive Etymological Dictionary of the English Language". I've only been able to find references going back as far as 1697, though I haven't looked that deeply, yet. Etymonline says 1753, but that's just the date Linnaeus published it in Species Plantarum. It's an alpine plant in southern Europe, so I would expect it to be known by a variety of poorly-attested local names before that. It does grow in Spain, where Arabic loanwords are fairly common, but I doubt that any Arabic name would be originally for the same plant, unless it was a name that originated in Spain (it's not uncommon for names to get transferred to new species outside of a language's homeland). The conventional wisdom seems to be that it might have come from ptarmica, which comes from the Greek word for sneezing. The main plant with that name is sneezewort, but it's possible that they both shared the name by virtue of their common ability to cause sneezing. At any rate, there doesn't seem to be any real evidence- just guesses. I think you were righ to change "probably" to "possibly". Chuck Entz (talk) 03:50, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

*λαγαδον

Hello Djkcel. You gave *λαγαδον (lagadon, “a kick, leap”) as a cognate of the Latin locusta (thank you, by the way, for answering the request for etymology). I noticed that it lacked a pitch marker, so I looked it up in LSJ; however, I could find no such term listed. Are you sure that it's right? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 19:14, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Hey there, ISMETA. Sorry for the confusion. The source was spot-on with its origin but it only uses romanized letters instead of Greek characters. That was my best guess at reconstructing 'lagadon.' Should I instead replace it with rfscript? — This unsigned comment was added by Djkcel (talk • contribs) at 20:07, 17 January 2014 (UTC).

"The source"? It's hard to figure out how credible your etymology without knowing what the source is. I can't find anything that could be interpreted as "*lagadon" in Perseus. There's a verb λακτίζω (laktízō, “kick with the heel or foot”), which might have a *lag- with the *g assimilated to the following *t, but nothing that starts with λαγαδ-. That doesn't mean the form can't exist, but it needs the attention of someone who can check other references. As for rfscript: if you don't have a reference that shows that the word exists in the correct language in the correct script with a reasonably close definition, you shouldn't be guessing at what it will be in the target script. In Ancient Greek, any transliteration that contains e or o is ambiguous (and there are other surprises such as unexpected spellings for some consonants followed by s or a velar consonant), and any Ancient Greek word (with very few exceptions) that doesn't show accents is incomplete.

In general, making stuff up based on guesswork is bad enough, and making stuff up in languages you don't know is worse. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:35, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Case in point: Old Persian was only written in Old Persian Cuneiform- never in the Arabic script, which was invented many centuries later, and wasn't used for Persian until a thousand years later. If you don't know this, you have no business working with Old Persian in anything but transliteration. If you don't know the script used by a language, don't guess- use the transliteration and add rfscript (or attention if you don't have enough information for rfscript). Chuck Entz (talk) 22:22, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Please see Wiktionary:About Ancient Greek#Diacritics and accentuation, which states "Tone/stress accents (i.e. the acute, circumflex, and grave accents) should be incorporated into the spelling of Ancient Greek words in all places, though they are not represented in transliterations." [underlining my emphasis] and peruse Wiktionary:Ancient Greek romanization and pronunciation. The transliteration schemes for Ancient Greek employed here and almost everywhere else are surjective, which means that the original Ancient Greek word cannot be adequately reconstructed from a transliteration. So yes, in future, please use {{rfscript}} if all you have to work from is a transliteration. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 00:56, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the heads-up and sorry for the honest mistake. Just so you don't think I'm making stuff up, the source is An Etymological Dictionary of Persian , English and other Indo-European Languages Vol 2, page 278. I see that it's on google books so here's a link to the entry if you want to look: Lacosta I'm noticing it also connected the word to English leg, lobster, lizard, and alligator. From now on RFscript it is for the romanizations. Djkcel (talk) 16:26, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. And FWIW, I had no doubt that you were editing in good faith. BTW, could you also cite that source in an entry's References section when you use it to add content in the future, please? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 17:03, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

No, please don't cite that self-published and unreliable source. --Vahag (talk) 17:17, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Now that I see your source, I can see that you mislabeled Persian as Old Persian. Persian is also known as Farsi, and is a modern language that uses to Arabic script. Old Persian might be part of what they call "Old Iranian", though I'm not at all sure what they mean by that. I notice that they give Pokorny p. 673 as a source for the Greek, but that reference doesn't mention the form in question- I suspect λαγαδων might be a Modern Greek word. You need to be more careful. Chuck Entz (talk) 17:32, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks be to flyax: λαγάδων (lagádon) is the genitive plural form of λαγάς (lagás, “hare hunter”) — in Modern Greek, I should add. :-)  — I.S.M.E.T.A. 23:16, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Awesome! Thanks for sharing. I wonder if λαγός is still related to the ancient word for kick. It seems to derive from the root that gave us languid (Latin langueo, languidis, etc) because of drooping. But it's still interesting to wonder if/how locusta ties into this. Djkcel (talk) 14:52, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, but I know scant little about reconstructed roots, so I couldn't say.
Two notes, if I may:

1. There is no need to use {{rfscript}} when using {{term}} to mention Ancient Greek terms by their transliterations only. See this change of mine to the etymology you added for the Modern Greek λαγός (lagós); if you include the transliteration using tr= and leave the first two unnamed parameters blank, {{term}} automatically generates a request for the native Ancient Greek script. Handy!
2. Vahagn Petrosyan (Vahag) raised doubts (in his post above timestamped: 17:17, 18 January 2014) about the reliability of your source. I would recommend that you speak to him about getting hold of some better sources for adding etymologies and reconstructed roots; he's told me that “[he] ha[s] good sources.”

Thanks for your co-operation. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 17:53, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

The etymology of Modern Greek λαγός (lagós) beyond Ancient Greek should be discussed at the Ancient Greek page, λαγώς (lagṓs). The best source for Ancient Greek etymology is Beekes 2010. Other good but somewhat outdated sources are Frisk and Chantraine. The last two are available on archive.org. The first one is available on pirate websites. --Vahag (talk) 18:49, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Template:recons

Hi, {{recons}} is deprecated and shouldn't be used anymore. Instead, please use {{term/t}} as follows: instead of {{recons|h₁éḱwos|lang=ine-pro}} type {{term/t|ine-pro|*h₁éḱwos}}. The same template can be used for attested languages too: {{term/t|es|caballo}} is exactly the same as {{term|caballo|lang=es}}. Just remember to put the asterisk at the beginning when referring to a reconstructed term (unlike {{recons}}, where you didn't have to type the asterisk). —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:23, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, this is very helpful! Djkcel (talk) 14:43, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

retalhar

Hey. what is your source for the etymology? None of mine mention Provençal. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 20:44, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Hey, got it from Word-formation in Provençal, Volume 2. Though the source is not actually sure if it was a direct borrowing from Provencal or if it just influenced the spelling. I'll change the edit to reflect that info. Djkcel (talk) 23:39, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

The digraph lh was adopted from Provençal, but this doesn’t mean every word containing it was loaned from Provençal. It replaced the earlier digraph ll which was already present in many native words. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 23:42, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

scarabaeus

The code "mk" refers to modern (Slavic) Macedonian. —CodeCat 17:10, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Gotcha. Old Macedonian and OCS are basically interchangeable, so I'll make that switch and note it for future edits

I actually thought you meant Ancient Macedonian, the Greek-related language. —CodeCat 00:55, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

It's found in Aristotle's Historia Animalium, and Aristotle died in 322 BCE- more than a thousand years before OCS was first commited to writing. The w:Ancient Macedonian language is either related to or part of Ancient Greek, depending on which source you follow. The modern w:Macedonian language is a South Slavic language that has nothing to do with the older Hellenic one. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:18, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

OK, this is making more sense now. That entry is citing Klein on the non-Greek suffix and Macedonian possibility and he must have meant ancient Macedonian rather than old Macedonian/OCS. Djkcel (talk) 02:26, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Χαλδαῖος

You provided an etymology for this word a few years ago: "Via Aramaic 𐡊𐡀𐡋𐡃𐡅 from Akkadian (māt) Kaldu." Do you have a source for this etymology? —ObsequiousNewt (εἴρηκα|πεποίηκα) 21:09, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Djkcel, thanks for adding the Akkadian cuneiform―I was having trouble finding a reference that provided it. Also, could you avoid adding the deprecated template {{term}}? The official standard is {{m}} now. —JohnC5 22:12, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

NP, thanks! Djkcel (talk) 15:02, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Bulgar

Hi, Djkcel. You made this edit, including the word Блугарину (Blugarinu), indicating that it is from the OED. Can you re-check that in your OED. I’m American, so I do not have the OED. Блугарину does not look possible to me. —Stephen ^(Talk) 20:31, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Certainly. According to OED, Bulgar originates...

from medieval Latin Bulgarus, from Old Church Slavic Blŭgarinŭ. Compare with bugger.

I think Old Bulgarian and OCS are interchangeable, but I'm not the best at spelling Cyrillic, especially since OED only provides transliterations. I almost certainly spelled those inflections wrong, but the transliteration is per OED. Djkcel (talk) 22:57, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Ah, never mind, Vorziblix fixed it. Thank you sir. Djkcel (talk) 23:02, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

slupan

Hi. Wouldn't PIE *(s)ley- give a Gmc *slīpaną ? Instead, shouldn't we be looking for a PIE *(s)leub- or (s)leubh-n- ? Leasnam (talk) 18:16, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Actually, you're right, there would have been an intermediary word between Gmc. *slīpaną and PIE (s)ley- . I fixed it. Good catch, thanks. Djkcel (talk) 23:59, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Old Persian Parsa

Hi, I reverted this edit of yours, which I think to be a mistake. Please explain or provide a source if I'm wrong. --Z 09:22, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Hey, my source is the entry 'persiana' on page 346:. Seem good? I added cognates for Persia in other languages just to provide some expansion.18:01, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

ἐρείκη, RC:Proto-Celtic/wroikos, etymolgies

I don't see any explanation that would lead from *wert- to any of these descendants. Watkins is also not terribly reliable. —JohnC5 18:19, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I was struggling a little with the connections they made as well. They put English briar, Greek ἐρείκη, RC:Proto-Celtic/wroikos, and Russian verst all in the same boat, e.g. as seen here Djkcel (talk) 03:07, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Interesting, so they're going for *wer- and not *wert- as the origin. I'm not sure any of this is particularly convincing. What do you think? —JohnC5 03:16, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

The Celtic (the source of Etymology 2 of briar, but not of Etymology 1)/Ancient Greek ἐρείκη (ereíkē) is thoroughly plausible, and Latin vermis/English worm, and I'm sure there are others, but trying to tie all those together to the same PIE root seems a bit ambitious, and their listing of reflexes of different stem consonants all jumbled together verges on misleading. By the way, I'm not so sure about their glosses: Latin ruscum isn't heather, it's butcher's broom or knee holly, which is a short plant with fairly simple, straight stems and prickly "leaves" (technically cladophylls). Their inclusion of English brusque with the Celtic seems odd, especially since our etymology of Italian brusco says it comes from ruscum. I also don't see the connection with Sanskrit कृमि (kṛmi)- where does the "k" come from? The whole thing seems like a hastily-compiled afterthought that doesn't care too much about the details. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:05, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. Possibilities, but just that. Djkcel (talk) 17:56, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Sources

Please try and cite sources to your etymologies, particularly the ones that offer reconstructions. I've found many of the reconstructed etymologies you've added range from dubious to flat-out wrong. Adding a source will save everyone some time. --Victar (talk) 08:56, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

If you think anything is egregiously incorrect, let me know and I'll go back and re-validate the source. I usually include sources, especially for more uncertain entries or ones that I know will get flak/push-back from admins, but haven't been including them for the more obvious derivations. I do need to get better about the latter. Djkcel (talk) 00:31, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I and others can't constantly watch and police you. That's why I'm asking you to step up your sourcing game. If we can't rely on you to police yourself, your stand to lose your Autopatroler status. --Victar (talk) 00:47, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Open musings

Can we write on our own talk pages? Of course we can. Cool. I will use this area to think aloud.

For one: it seems that the editors on wiktionary don't trust the editors on wikipedia. Many entries on here borrowing from wikipedia's sources seem to get reverted. Maybe wikipedia has less quality control.

Which is funny, because when such entries get reverted over here, I head over to wikipedia to correct the false information, then it pisses off the editors over there when I remove it. Djkcel (talk) 12:34, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

שופר

Hi. Do you remember where exactly in Johnson's dictionary you found the information you added to the etymology (diff)? It would be very helpful. --WikiTiki89 20:50, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Oh man. That was so long ago that I don't have that book anymore. Though, I think rather than it being a Proto-Semitic inheritance it was rather borrowed directly from Akkadian 𒊭𒀊𒉺𒊒. Several sources seem to agree with this. Do you want me to go ahead and update it? Djkcel (talk) 18:44, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I mean that's a separate question. I was just trying to locate the Arabic word that you added, which was clearly misspelled, but I couldn't find it under any possible correct spelling in any dictionary. --WikiTiki89 18:47, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Knowing old me I probably borrowed it from Harper and didn't spell the transliteration correctly. Djkcel (talk) 18:48, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Then the reference to that dictionary was probably just a mistake? --WikiTiki89 18:53, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Could be, but that's his only source on Semitic words. Djkcel (talk) 23:41, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

@Djkcel: Sorry; but there is no relationship between mote and mud. The source of that etymology has presented just a 'cool' one, which would mislead the public; but the rest of the etymology is fine". Andrew H. Gray 07:47, 30 September 2017 (UTC)Andrew

league

Djkcel, thank you for sourcing, but obscure etymological theories from 1819 are not reputable sources. Please try and use more modern works. Thanks. --Victar (talk) 14:12, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

I've also reverted your etymology for Paris. It's based on a single piece a work from 1899, based on an incorrect etymology from a Celtic dictionary from 1754. Please follow through more with sources, and again, using modern sources. --Victar (talk) 14:30, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Hey man, been a while! Thanks, yes, modern sources better, but help me define a cutoff date for modern. e.g. Liddell & Scott (1889) An Intermediate Greek–English Lexicon, New York: Harper & Brothers is from 1889 but I see it cited quite often as a reliable source here, same for Brechet's AN ETYMOLOGICAL DICTIONARY OF THE FRENCH LANGUAGE (1882). Exceptions rather than the means? Djkcel (talk) 14:34, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Older sources on languages are often quite good. Older sources on etymology get progressively worse the further back you go. It also depends on which languages/families, since the progress made in those areas varies quite a bit: for instance, there were pretty decent early works on Indo-European from the 1830's, but there were still people advancing other theories for a few decades after that (stay away from w:Richard Valpy and w:John Bellenden Ker Gawler, for instance). I wouldn't trust anything before mid-nineteenth century for etymologies. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:31, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Chuck. Yep, everything before Rask and Grimm is mostly misguided junk not worth sifting through. The key is to a) know your sources and their credibility -- are they often cited on the project?, and b) follow the sources, who do they cite, and so on. In the 1754 source mentioned for Paris, where they're trying to erroneously create a PCelt root on the basis of Ancient Greek βάρις (báris, “small boat”), which is not IE in origin, but Semitic. --Victar (talk) 16:04, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey

Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes.

Take the survey now!

You can find more information about this survey on the project page and see how your feedback helps the Wikimedia Foundation support editors like you. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement (in English). Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email through the EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys to remove you from the list.

Thank you!

WMF Surveys, 18:36, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Etymologies

Please stop inventing etymologies with no references and please do not delete etymologies simply because you disagree with them. --Victar (talk) 23:00, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

??????

In your first example, I didn't "invent" any etymology, I simply copied what was already stated for *pikkōną on pick. So, if that's wrong, it needs to be removed from pick as well.

In your second example, I didn't "delete" any etymology and I certainly see no "disagreement" in my edit. I simply took the origin a step further. I can only find one source on Gothic *ganan, which is page 744 of Template:R:ine:Roberts, who derives it from Proto-Germanic *waiþanjaną. Did you not delete my edit because you disagree with this, or what?

Anyway thanks keep 'em coming. @Victar: Djkcel (talk) 17:33, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Your ping didn't work because you didn't initially sign your reply.

You need to stop relying on simply copying etymologies from other entries without checking them. That isn't a carte blanche excuse for perpetuating bad etymologies, particularly when you do not source them.

*wadanio and gano and two separate words with separate etymologies. You can't get Gothic *𐌲𐌰𐌽𐌰𐌽 (*ganan) from Proto-Germanic *waiþanjaną and adding such an etymology shows a lack of thoroughness and understanding, and that is my biggest concern with your etymologies, that you are working in languages simply you do not understand. --Victar (talk) 16:15, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Also, I read {{R:ine:Roberts|751}}, and it agrees with the previous etymology, that the word is influenced by *waiþanjaną, not derived form. --Victar (talk) 17:12, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

I think it may have just been the way he worded it. "ganar: to gain, to win [Goth. *ganan: to covet, desire, infl. in meaning by It. guadagnare & Fr. gagner, to earn, both from Grmc. *waithanjan: to hunt, plunder; to obtain food; to graze cattle.]" When he said "both from," I thought "both" meant the Gothic word and the Romance words. He doesn't usually trace influences like that.

I didn't sign my reply on the talk page for pick, either, so maybe that's why you guys didn't respond. I was asking what the status on the discussion was. Sure, I shouldn't copy wrong information from other pages, but that doesn't change the fact that the bad information shouldn't be there in the first place. It leads to inconsistency across entries. By the way, the PIE I copied from pick wasn't sourced on that page, either, so make sure Leasnam knows. Hell, revert his edit with the same zeal you with which do to mine if you don't agree with it. See, I'm helping! @Victar: Djkcel (talk) 21:02, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Reminder: Share your feedback in this Wikimedia survey

Every response for this survey can help the Wikimedia Foundation improve your experience on the Wikimedia projects. So far, we have heard from just 29% of Wikimedia contributors. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes to be completed. Take the survey now.

If you have already taken the survey, we are sorry you've received this reminder. We have design the survey to make it impossible to identify which users have taken the survey, so we have to send reminders to everyone. If you wish to opt-out of the next reminder or any other survey, send an email through EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys. You can also send any questions you have to this user email. Learn more about this survey on the project page. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this Wikimedia Foundation privacy statement. Thanks!

WMF Surveys, 01:34, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey

Hello! This is a final reminder that the Wikimedia Foundation survey will close on 23 April, 2018 (07:00 UTC). The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes. Take the survey now.

If you already took the survey - thank you! We will not bother you again. We have designed the survey to make it impossible to identify which users have taken the survey, so we have to send reminders to everyone. To opt-out of future surveys, send an email through EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys. You can also send any questions you have to this user email. Learn more about this survey on the project page. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this Wikimedia Foundation privacy statement.

WMF Surveys, 00:43, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for στάχυς

Thank you Djkcel for your many and nice etymologies! I do not know much, but I think there is a typo at στάχυς: στόνυε and οτόχος. They didn't sound familiar, I believe they could be στόνυξ (stónux, “sharp point”) and στόχος (stókhos, “target”). I checked at perseus and at Hofmann, but I do not have your books. sarri.greek (talk) 19:00, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Sarri.greek! you were right about both typos and I have fixed them. cheers Djkcel (talk) 21:45, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

{{rfe}} requests

Your etymology for Proto-Celtic *wastos is incomplete, outdated and very poorly formatted, to the point that the {{rfe}} tag should not have been removed. You've been asked this before, but please refrain from fulfilling {{rfe}} requests in languages you are not familiar, especially proto languages, simply for the sake of clearing the request. --{{victar|talk}} 04:58, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

I actually haven't been asked that before, but glad to see the entry more fleshed out. Djkcel (talk) 05:24, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

You've been warned many times about your erroneous etymologies. The fact that the notion of not working in areas unfamiliar to you is a foreign concept is troubling in and of itself. I also had to go back and rework this other Proto-Celtic entry from 2 days ago, in which you a) gave a completely nonsense PIE etymology, and b) took a widely unsupported etymology used for the Proto-Brythonic form and applied it to the PCelt form, which shows a complete lack of knowledge of both the subject and the sources. --{{victar|talk}} 07:04, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Soooooo....it wasn't good? 😄

The second etymology is from The Reflexes of the Proto-Indo-European Laryngeals in Latin and I didn't corrupt any of the information found on page 36. Go tell Schrijver that he's wrong. (We're told to source here, but 98% of sources are unreliable, apparently) Djkcel (talk) 15:41, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

The dubious *ɸēskos etymology -- which is from Pijnenburg, if you took the time to follow the sources, another thing I've had to bring up with you -- is the least of my complaints. It's your complete nonsense fabrications and ill-informed, reckless mistakes that I take the most umbrage with, all of which were exhibited is spades in this entry. --{{victar|talk}} 18:38, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Romance terms for "birch" and a question about a Proto-Italic edit

E.g. at bétula, boul, I have a couple of questions, some out of my own inexperience with Vulgar Latin/Romance languages in general (besides Classical latin) and some out of concern for how you came to these etymologies:

1. How do the gender changes betulla (feminine) > *betūle (?) / *betūlus (masculine) > bétula (feminine) work? What gender, case, number and declension is *betūle? Can you be more specific with which VL. form which descendant is derived from?
2. What about the gemination in betulla? Why is it only present in the reconstruction *betullum and if boul for example (one of the few entries which lists *betullum besides the other two reconstructions) derives from that specifically, why are the others listed? How about bedoll, or more interestingly (considering the w:La Spezia-Rimini Line) Italian betulla which you derive from a non-geminated source?

There's a lot more I'm wondering about these edits, but generally speaking I guess I'm wondering where you're getting this from & if you could be more specific.

Hey, @Mnemosientje:. For the Vulgar Latin forms, I believe some of those feminine forms were already there from a previous editor - like when I made the edit to abedul, so I didn't take them out. The Diccionario de la lengua española seems to agree with the shift as well on their entry for abedul. It could be that they were just listing possible VL variants of the original Gaulish term. All of these Romance birch pages were a little scattered on the variants they listed and they still don't agree - for instance the Galician entries bídalo and bidueiro still need some work. Djkcel (talk) 15:54, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Then there's a second point, unrelated: your edits to kadamitas seem OK, but wouldn't the Proto-Italic term end in -os for the nominative singular, not -o? — Mnemosientje (t · c) 12:17, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

(Do however note that kadamitas has a suffix -tas while *kalamo(s) obviously doesn't, thus, the former is not inherited from the latter but simply derived for the purposes of our categorization and templates.) — Mnemosientje (t · c) 12:23, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

For my edit to Latin kadamitas I consulted de Vaan, who constructs Proto-Italic *kalamo/i- (“damaged”) and Proto-Italic *n-kalami- (“safe”) for the classical Latin calamitas. He actually leaves out the Old Latin intermediate kadamitas, so I'm not entirely sure how he would reconcile the difference. He could have just left out the -s. You're right about the inheriting due to the suffix - it's so easy to get used to the obvious fact that Latin inherits from Proto-Italic and forget about suffixes which can be added later on. I appreciate you going through my edits and making suggestions, as well as being more constructive (or at the very least levelheaded) than some others here. Djkcel (talk) 15:54, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

china

@Djkcel Am glad that this lexeme is now far more protected from further vandalism; although, without intending to be too sarcastic, if the etymology you presented were sourced from my etymologies, I should suggest that users were also protected from viewing any such of mine. A little etymological logic, which your source document seems to lack, would tell anyone with your intellect that the child's game name is clearly a derivative from the term for "pebble". I tried to make that clear on its talk page. Sorry to be so blunt and I do not wish to cause any offence; but some etymologies are quite exasperating! Kind regards: Andrew Andrew H. Gray 18:05, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

@Werdna Yrneh Yarg: Feel free to expound on that entry; two good sources, for Spanish words “china”, in Diccionario de la lengua española, Vigésima tercera edición, Real Academia Española, 2014 and Roberts, Edward A. (2014) A Comprehensive Etymological Dictionary of the Spanish Language with Families of Words based on Indo-European Roots, Xlibris Corporation, →ISBN, both agree with the "chin" children speak derivation. It very well may be from an older word for "pebble" but they don't mention it. Thanks Djkcel (talk) 20:40, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for bothering to reply; I did not think that you pioneered the content of its etymology. Kind regards: Andrew Andrew H. Gray 20:59, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

toad

{{ping @ Djkcel}}: That is a sensible conclusion, considering that most readers are unlikely to want the old English forms or imaginary roots. Andrew H. Gray 12:46, 21 June 2019 (UTC)Andrew

brant

Is this currently how you're operating again, adding spurious etymologies with no sources? --{{victar|talk}} 14:39, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Exhibit A

Exhibit B

Exhibit C

Exhibit D

Exhibit E

"spurious"

Djkcel (talk) 18:45, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Then add sources, Djkcel! I don't know why this is so difficult for you. Also, add them inline; how do we know you're sourcing the etymology when you just throw it at the bottom of the page? Any source that isn't inline should really be under Further Reading, not References, because you're not citing anything. --{{victar|talk}} 19:30, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi Djkcel,

The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey about your experience with Wiktionary and Wikimedia. The purpose of this survey is to learn how well the Foundation is supporting your work on wiki and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 14:34, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi Djkcel,

A couple of weeks ago, we invited you to take the Community Insights Survey. It is the Wikimedia Foundation’s annual survey of our global communities. We want to learn how well we support your work on wiki. We are 10% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! Your voice matters to us.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 19:14, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi Djkcel,

There are only a few weeks left to take the Community Insights Survey! We are 30% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! With this poll, the Wikimedia Foundation gathers feedback on how well we support your work on wiki. It only takes 15-25 minutes to complete, and it has a direct impact on the support we provide.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 17:04, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Dutch etymologies

These edits (diff, diff) were seriously at odd with what etymological reference works state about these etymologies, and these aren't the only problematic edits on Dutch etymologies I've seen from you. Perhaps you should refrain from editing Dutch etymologies without consulting standard works. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 08:59, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

*editing all etymologies. Most of your edits these days, again, lack any and all sources and your spurious etymologies brings down the quality of this project. --{{victar|talk}} 20:29, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

ON bolr, bulr

Re: diff. Where did you find PGmc "*bullas"? Thematic Germanic nouns and adjectives never end in -s in the nominative singular , and bulr/bolr is an i-stem anyway so it isn t likely to derive from an a-stem Germanic form. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 13:53, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Harper's entry for English bole gave the Proto-Germanic form and PIE root, citing Watkins' entry here, while Roberts, Edward A. (2014) A Comprehensive Etymological Dictionary of the Spanish Language with Families of Words based on Indo-European Roots, Xlibris Corporation, →ISBN (p. 740) lists Proto-Indo-European *bʰel- only for bulr. Sadly Kroonen doesn't cover this term. DJ K-Çel (talk) 18:12, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. The PIE root seems plausible, but the Germanic form given ("bulas") in that link is not really usable — Mnemosientje (t · c) 12:08, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Reconstruction:Latin/lausa

I would have thought you would have known by now, but {{bor}} should only be used at the start of an etymology, never further down the chain of descent (see {{borrowed/documentation}}). Also redirecting the word to a completely different entry is bad form. --{{victar|talk}} 02:00, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Clean up your mess at Old French losenge, because that Proto-Celtic form (Proto-Celtic *lausā (“stone”)) was borrowed from your very own words. How ironic that you come to yell at me for borrowing your own contributed knowledge. I acknowledge that it should have been {{der}} over {{bor}}, was looking at the Gaulish form while typing that. DJ K-Çel (talk) 02:06, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

What are you even talking about? Did you even look at the diff? What are you not understanding? --{{victar|talk}} 02:12, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

When you said "redirecting the word to a completely different entry is bad form" I'm assuming you meant *lausā >> *līwā, but that's what your edit on losenge did. I know {{der}} should have been used. DJ K-Çel (talk) 02:25, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm glad you understand the {{bor}} vs. {{der}} issue now, if you didn't before. I hear where your coming from on my edit 4 years ago, yet that was done because the entry was moved; regardless, that wasn't the best way to go on my part either. Please try and use some comprehension though, instead of blindly copying entries. --{{victar|talk}} 03:15, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/tauro

This entry has been sent to RFD, and it has many fundamental problems. We cannot reconstruct PIE items based on so little evidence, which as the entry itself acknowledges, may not even be inherited, and the sources used in the entry are not up to scholarly standards. I see that you have been warned before about many aspects of your etymological editing, and yet continue to make entries like this. I have to ask you to stop creating reconstruction entries altogether. We do not have enough knowledgeable people to look over and check your contributions, and catch all the problematic ones. In general, please do not make edits to etymologies without referencing standard etymological works (please ask if you are unsure). This is your final warning. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 01:14, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

@Metaknowledge: To be fair, I proposed this root over at the tea room about a week ago and nobody responded. I figured the lack of opposition meant that it was ok for me to go ahead and try my hand at the entry. Was that not the right place to ask? Perhaps the scriptorium would have been better?

If you're asking me not to create any more PIE reconstructions, you can be sure that I won't be because it's not worth this kind of backlash when a perfect term isn't created (by the way, that's the first PIE entry I've ever tried). However, I've recently created several Proto-Celtic entries 1 234 that seem to have been welcomed. I use Leiden and OED for most of my stuff. When in doubt, I'll ask. DJ K-Çel (talk) 04:55, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Absence of response doesn't mean approval (and yes, the ES would've been better). As for Proto-Celtic, I'm afraid I don't know anything about it, so I will ping some people who can tell you whether these are indeed up to standards. @Mahagaja, Victar, Mellohi! —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 05:04, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

The Proto-Celtic entries look fine, not least because they all seem to have been taken directly from {{R:cel:EDPC}}. —Mahāgaja · talk 08:28, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Entries like *dawnā should not exist though, with only a single descendant, especially when their etymology is questionable. Such instances should be left to etymologies. --{{victar|talk}} 08:34, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Entry formating

I've seen you add entries in manners when they shouldn't be done, forcing me to fix them; some you haven't repeated, yet I liked to bring a few problems to this discussion. Recently you added Proto-Germanic *hartą as *harta-, which shouldn't be done; all entries are to be created in the nominative singular. Furthermore you added it as a feminine noun despite Kroonen saying it's a neuter noun; the "n." stands for netuer not for noun.

Also, don't add Gaulish nouns ending in "-us" as Gaulish; e.g. *brikkos unless there is evidence that the nouns was a u stem; most "Gaulish" -um, -us and -o nouns are in fact Gaulish noun borrowed into Latin and adapted to a Latin declension.

And don't forget to order the Celtic descendants as:

• Brythonic:
  • Breton:
  • Cornish:
  • Welsh:
• Irish:
• Gaulish:

𐌷𐌻𐌿𐌳𐌰𐍅𐌹𐌲𐍃 𐌰𐌻𐌰𐍂𐌴𐌹𐌺𐌹𐌲𐌲𐍃 (talk) 17:14, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips. I may have been following Leiden's headwords and formatting a little too closely. I'm now realizing that when Matasovic says "Briccus [PN]" he is actually referring to an attested Latin borrowing, not a Gaulish word. I'll refer to your guidelines for any future entries. DJ K-Çel (talk) 18:18, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

On February 28, I warned you that some of the reconstruction entries you were creating were not up to our standards (the ones copied directly were okay, but you could not determine for yourself which ones were fine and which were not). On March 11, you created the reconstruction entry mentioned by Holodwig that blatantly failed to match our standards, which would take less than a minute to check, and contained a basic error. Pursuant to my warning above, if you make any such errors in reconstruction entries or etymologies from now on, you will be blocked. Your best course of action is not to create any reconstruction entries any more. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 18:34, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

bor in Dutch etymologies from Old French

Hi, I recently noticed your update of the etymology of Dutch moeras; thanks for that. I do have a small request though. In that etymology and a few other ones you have used {{bor|nl|fro|}}. However, {{bor}} is used for direct borrowings, not those that have been mediated by other languages. Terms in Dutch that derived from Old French are practically always passed on through another language, be it through Middle Dutch, Middle French (and perhaps subsequently modern French) or a third language. So {{der}} is usually the one that should be used. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 13:14, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Dubious sources (again)

These are your sources for this totally dreadful PIE etymology, a book from 1825 and some personal website? Really, Djkcel, has nothing set-in on using respectable sources? Can you please, pretty please, stop with the onomatic etymologies? They're dubious enough without junk sources. I've asked you to start using inline sources so we can know what suspect element comes from what suspect source, but you haven't taken to that advice either.

Look, I'm not trying to be an asshole, but resolving RFEs shouldn't be some fill-in-the-blanks game at the detriment to the quality of the project. @Metaknowledge --{{victar|talk}} 02:36, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Out of respect for your request, I'll take a break from onomastic entries, or at least ones that require some digging. In return, can you at least please assume good faith and understand that I'm trying to help and not be a "detriment?" Hostility and excoriation does this place no favors, either. Just once I'd like to have a civil exchange with you so that it can at least be productive. It's never happened.

Regarding the etymology, I honestly thought it was fine (not feigning ignorance here). I paraphrased Antonio's etymology of Aeculanum (did you read it?), where he cited the listed source of Ribezzo, listed some possible cognates, and maintained a cautious tone that it was only possible. What was so wrong with that? I've read here that just because a source is old doesn't mean it should necessarily be discarded.

98% of my sourcing has been more precise recently as well. I try my very hardest to use the ones with templates only, but if they don't have one, I list a page number. But sometimes, like in Antonio's case, he doesn't give a page number to refer to, so I can only list the source itself.

Just curious @victar, what do you think some of my strengths as an editor are? I'm genuinely curious, so I can at least have something to build upon.

Also, in case Metaknowledge wants to weigh in with judgment - you asked me to stop creating reconstructions on March 12th and I've since honored that request. The issue in question is now placenames. DJ K-Çel (talk) 02:55, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Djkcel, I lack patients with you because I try and get you on the right track with your edits, like using outdated sources (3 years ago), and then step away to find you at it again a month later. I can recognize some efforts being made, but when another user has to bring up how you're using {{bor}} wrong again after I just brought it up with you in January, it's very frustrating. Your etymology truthfully has some kernel of value to it and I cleaned it the best I could, but no one with any basic modern understanding of PIE would reconstruct *aikwo-. Again, I'm not trying to be callous, but since you asked, in my opinion, you're a jack of all trades, master of none. Just as an example, you could gather up etymological source martials on Greek and Latin and focus of Greek borrowings into Latin. Filling in RFE for every language is going to get you in trouble pretty much forever. --{{victar|talk}} 03:42, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

To be fair, Lingo's message above was regarding an edit from December 16th and your message came on January 14th. That's why I just thanked him for the edit and decided not to make any more out of it. But I see what you're saying and they were both unfortunate mind slips by me.

I appreciate your blunt honesty and candor all the same, and I'm going to think a little harder before choosing which pages to edit. DJ K-Çel (talk) 04:14, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

OK, thanks. --{{victar|talk}} 05:38, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

So what's your game plan? --{{victar|talk}} 21:56, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

क्रम

At क्रम (Sanskrit krama) you introduced an etymology claiming a derivation from PIE *gʰredʰ-. How do you propose to derive krama from *gʰredʰ-? Hölderlin2019 (talk) 12:05, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello. I've added the three sources for that etymology (I usually source, not sure why I forgot with that edit, sorry). The problem is that Rendich compares क्रम (krama) with Latin gradus, equating Sanskrit k with Latin g, r with r, a with a/e, and m with m/d, but he uses an outdated Pokorny root *kram (“to move”), whereas I instead used Vasmer's and de Vaan's more accepted root *gʰredʰ- (“to move, step”). Rendich also compares Latin gramen (“grass”) but I think that's from a slightly different root *gʰreh₁- (“to grow”). DJ K-Çel (talk) 19:02, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, but no, that etymology is embarrassingly impossible, and illustrative of why people should stick to languages they actually know, including authors who like to ramble on possible cognates. --{{victar|talk}} 03:05, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

The Franco Rendich guy does not seem like a very reliable source. I have removed all etymologies citing him, as they all seemed rather crappy; some had been removed by others already. Speaking of which, Djkcel, please only work with reliable, academic, and preferably recent sources... — Mnemosientje (t · c) 16:22, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Friesa etymology

Are you sure this was borrowed via Latin? (Why would it be?) Anyway, the Latin cannot be from Frisian, as it is attested from the beginning of the millennium - way before Frisian (and indeed even West Germanic) was distinct from Proto-Germanic. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 06:44, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

OK, was just going off of OED's entry, which says:

from Latin Frisii ‘Frisians’ (from Old Frisian Frīsa, Frēsa) + -ian.

Though I now realize this may be referring to Frisia in the modern sense... DJ K-Çel (talk) 07:00, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, Frisia is a borrowing from Latin, although even that term can still not derive from Old Frisian. So I am mystified by the OED, perhaps the parenthetic text works differently here and is not supposed to suggest that the Latin derive from the Old Frisian. Either way, that doesn't work chronologically. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 07:09, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

"I am scolded by admins on here way less frequently than I used to be"

hahahaha I know mate. Thanks for moth bean. Equinox ◑ 00:55, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Inline sources

Again, can you please try and use inline sources for your etymologies, like in this case? I have no way otherwise if knowing if the item you added to "Further reading" is to with the word itself, the etymology, or or neither. You've ignored the request many times now. Why is that? --{{victar|talk}} 22:50, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Sup. Forgive my ignorance but I was never too familiar with what inline sources meant, and w:References doesn't seem to have any info. (maybe we can refer to Wikipedia: Inline Citation?)

Anyway, does that simply mean you attach a reference to an etymology/descendant using <ref> so that the ref appears as a superscript, on which you can click to bring you to that specific reference? I'm fine doing that. But, on *datlā, I did refer to the book, headword and page number. Were you just wanting to see it under "References" instead of "Further reading?"

While we're on the subject, in the past I've cited Kroonen, OED, Beekes etc under "References" only for someone to come along and change it to "Further reading." I think Rua may have done it a few times. Is there a consensus on when to use what? thanks in advance. DJ K-Çel (talk) 01:15, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

As for "lease try and used inline sources for your etymologies", this is not Wiktionary standard; it is one of multiple practices. In case of any further doubt, we may start a Beer parlour discussion to see whether editors want to establish a recommendation in that direction.

My experience with the English Wiktionary is that there are too many editors asking people to follow non-existent standards, often standards that I find unreasonable. Luckily enough, we have a mature voting process that can sort out where consensus actually lies. ---Dan Polansky (talk) 10:47, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

On the other hand, I would be happy to make user signatures like those of the original poster illegal; alas, I am not a supreme legislator of the place. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:48, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

@Djkcel: Correct, inline sourcing just means, as you say, using <ref>{{R:cel:EDPC}}<∕ref> after that actual information you're citing, which then is called up under References using  <references />. I only use Further reading is the content does not cite a reconnection or etymology, usually cognate lists. --{{victar|talk}} 15:00, 30 May 2020 (UTC)